Database Develop

why old processor?

why have they put an old model processor in there? why not the MSM8255?
i am holding out for a little bit, i am due an upgrade now, but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
Plus want to see what modding can be done to the software / themes, 3rd party apps etc

t3rm3y said:
why have they put an old model processor in there? why not the MSM8255?
i am holding out for a little bit, i am due an upgrade now, but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
Plus want to see what modding can be done to the software / themes, 3rd party apps etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
because Microsoft only support the "old" snapdragon .

why apple customers don't ask them the same question , they use the same GPU as what is in 3gs a year ago ,
a second thing wp7 is developed on the snapdragon which is more than enough for now with it's improved drivers and direct x 9 support , it will perform even 2x better than a DHD with 8255 processor

t3rm3y said:
but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
QUOTE]
Sorry I'm the one that had to break the news, but there is always something better coming...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

hoss_n2 said:
why apple customers don't ask them the same question , they use the same GPU as what is in 3gs a year ago ,
a second thing wp7 is developed on the snapdragon which is more than enough for now with it's improved drivers and direct x 9 support , it will perform even 2x better than a DHD with 8255 processor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 and 10char

t3rm3y said:
why have they put an old model processor in there? why not the MSM8255?
i am holding out for a little bit, i am due an upgrade now, but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
Plus want to see what modding can be done to the software / themes, 3rd party apps etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have an HD7, it is lag free and very responsive, I think the processor will be up to the task as long as the coding is optimal.

Because having the next most powerful processor isn't important. It doesn't matter what kinda specs a device is running s long as the device runs well. Apple has proved that.
And from what I have seen, MP7 runs beautifully.

Lorddeff07 said:
Because having the next most powerful processor isn't important. It doesn't matter what kinda specs a device is running s long as the device runs well. Apple has proved that.
And from what I have seen, MP7 runs beautifully.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True that.

Old processor?
Maybe this is a bad news to you, but it's good to me cause of my hd2.

I probably would have been crying about the same thing, if technology was growing by leaps and bounds. But its not right now, technology is kinda stagnate as of lately. Yes, the HD7 has the same processor as its predecessor the HD2, but its not a bad thing. especially now that the new rom has came out for the HD2, it feels faster than ever (you can go on the HD2 and Leo boards to attest for yourself). Another thing to remember, is that the new Windows Phone 7, is not an OS that needs a 2Ghz processor to run buttery smooth. I think that we are used to the PC ideology that the next thing should have a higher number than the last, in order to be considered and respectable upgrade. But even those Intel and AMD processors, reached their, threshold for raw computing power (for now) and the companies are now refining their codes, and drivers, in order to utilize and maximize peak performance out of what they already have. (That's why 4Ghz desktop processors aren't mainstream yet)
Another thing is the WP7 is standardized with base set requirements for internal specs. I truly doubt that you'll find a noticeable difference between all the launch devices behavior with the OS, because of their processors. The mail screen might open up a little quicker on one device, but again, that could be a driver code magic for the display adapter in a particular phone, so the one that "wins" in our mind, should have been the "newer, speedier" processor but because of the refinement and more developed drivers, the one that displayed the inbox quicker was the "older" processor. (I hope you guys got that...lol)
So what I'm trying to say at the end of the day, is it really doesn't matter about the processor spec, because whats inside the HD7 is more than plenty to run the OS and its apps very very nicely.

Help my poor computer..

I know there are better forums to ask this on but I love XDA and figured you guys might know a thing or two about computers..
I bought my HP Pavilion dv6 2190 2 years ago and it has been great to me.. only complaint is that the 6 cell battery give me enough time to un plug and find a new outlet..
Anyways after 2 years, it needed some work.. It has a 1.8Ghz i7, Nvidia GT230m 1GB GPU, and I doubled my RAM from 4GB to 8GB and then took the 500Gb HDD out and installed a clean install of windows 7 professional on a 128GB SSD and then put the 500GB HDD in a caddy and installed it in my DVD bay as media storage, plus I never used my DVD drive..
Now I split the 128GB SSD in two partitions for a Ubuntu and W7 dual boot and Ubuntu flies, no issues with videos, unlimited browsers, all kinds of applications open at once, But W7 just plain sucks.. Browsers when watching a Video, the video will become choppy and the entiresystem will come to a hault.. Also even before the SSD and RAM, Editing in Premiere Pro wasnt this choppy. Sometimes it flies like it should, then other times it gets so bogged down with just one Browser open, or when editing Video with no other programs running and less then 60 total processes running Video playback at 1/4 quality is so hoppy its un useable.
I understand that my computer is 2 years old but with this much new equipment and a clean install I would think it would be happy as a champ in both Ubuntu and W7.
I keep my computer clean and dont have tons of programs bogging it down.. I just want to know what you guys think and what info do you need to help me?
I tried to see if I have and back ground programs or processes that are holdong things back but I cant see anything..
Any ideas?
Last.. Mods feel free to move topic..
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

What speed is the 500gb HD? And 1.7 GHz is not that much for video editing. Also make sure you don't have any unnecessary processes running. Go to task manager, second tab, and click the tab that I forgot what it says and I can't check now cuz I'm on a mac. It's the last one.

jaszek said:
What speed is the 500gb HD? And 1.7 GHz is not that much for video editing. Also make sure you don't have any unnecessary processes running. Go to task manager, second tab, and click the tab that I forgot what it says and I can't check now cuz I'm on a mac. It's the last one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The HDD is a 7200rpm and is data only. The os and few programs I have are on the SSD. And 1.8 ghz is not blistering fast but has worked just fine before. Plus premiere pro uses the gpu for playback.. And this happens with chrome too. It's not just editing. And I am down to 50-55 processes and they are all system except for the editing program.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

Spend 500 bucks and get a laptop 4 times faster, it's the most logical solution.
Sent from my anus using xda crap

Scan with an antivirus. There might be something there. Also if you have the time, format again, might help.

Sounds like a Hardware Acceleration issue to me. That's a weak GPU and everything you describe as causing problems is when the GPU is being utilised. Try turning off Hardware Acceleration in your Browser/Video Player (DXVA), and see if they run better without it.
Windows may also feel sluggish with Aero turned on as that also uses Hardware Acceleration.

DirkGently said:
Sounds like a Hardware Acceleration issue to me. That's a weak GPU and everything you describe as causing problems is when the GPU is being utilised. Try turning off Hardware Acceleration in your Browser/Video Player (DXVA), and see if they run better without it.
Windows may also feel sluggish with Aero turned on as that also uses Hardware Acceleration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 turn off Aero.

DirkGently said:
Sounds like a Hardware Acceleration issue to me. That's a weak GPU and everything you describe as causing problems is when the GPU is being utilised. Try turning off Hardware Acceleration in your Browser/Video Player (DXVA), and see if they run better without it.
Windows may also feel sluggish with Aero turned on as that also uses Hardware Acceleration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will turn Aero off and see if that helps.. I remember AVG Tune up had me turn off Aero before I did all these upgrades, I will try that. and I know its a week GPU but it ran the murcery playback engine in Premiere Pro for over a year just fine with 1080 h.264 video with color correcting and multiple layers just fine at 1/2 quality realtime playback and now I can't watch 1/4 quality with out the computer coming to a stand still.. could my GPU have gone bad?
jaszek said:
Scan with an antivirus. There might be something there. Also if you have the time, format again, might help.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
multiple AVG full computer scans never come up with anything more then just empty browser cache and cookies and that small stuff.. I may format both the 500GB HDD and the 128SSD.. I know the HDD could use Defraging and probably should be just wipped.. But still the OS's and Programs are on the SSD.. And Ubuntu runs like a champ so I find it hard to think its so much hardware issue.
itsbeertimenow said:
Spend 500 bucks and get a laptop 4 times faster, it's the most logical solution.
.
Sent from my anus using xda crap
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its obvious your deep into your beer time.. I just put $200 into this computer to bring it up to speed, I am not buying a new computer.. I only use The hp for video and photo work, 95% of my time is on my Transformer booted into Ubuntu.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

swan3609 said:
Its obvious your deep into your beer time.. I just put $200 into this computer to bring it up to speed, I am not buying a new computer.. I only use The hp for video and photo work, 95% of my time is on my Transformer booted into Ubuntu.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would you spend $200 on something that's not going to be worth half that when you're done.
Shoot your computer it's lame.

itsbeertimenow said:
Why would you spend $200 on something that's not going to be worth half that when you're done.
Shoot your computer it's lame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does that make any sense?
Anyhow, to the OP, couple of things:
1. If your copy of Windows isn't legit, get it legit. I remember I used to have problems on my laptop because I hadn't activated my Windows yet. Once I did, everything was gone.
2. What's your WEI for the graphic card? Maybe do a stress test and see how well it performs.

Well worth checking out whether the GPU has indeed gone bad. Run some tests and monitor temps too as it may be throttling. Don't forget that the age of that Laptop puts in within the period of time of the Nvidia 'Bumpgate' troubles, where their mobile GPU's were dying left and right because of a manufacturing defect.
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-defective/

kareeem said:
How does that make any sense?
Anyhow, to the OP, couple of things:
1. If your copy of Windows isn't legit, get it legit. I remember I used to have problems on my laptop because I hadn't activated my Windows yet. Once I did, everything was gone.
2. What's your WEI for the graphic card? Maybe do a stress test and see how well it performs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Windows is legitimate. I am a student and got w7 professional as a download with a valid product key.
I am not sure about my WEI. I will check it when I get back home. I believe that it was very high 5+ if I remember rightly. I will try testing the card this afternoon and see what is up.
I would be a sad dude if my gpu was bad. I am well out of my warranty
DirkGently said:
Well worth checking out whether the GPU has indeed gone bad. Run some tests and monitor temps too as it may be throttling. Don't forget that the age of that Laptop puts in within the period of time of the Nvidia 'Bumpgate' troubles, where their mobile GPU's were dying left and right because of a manufacturing defect.
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-defective/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sucks. I will check it out. What is the best stress testing application? I have a bad feeling about mine..
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

Run rthdribl against it for a while:
http://downloadcenter24.com/video-and-dvd/rthdribl.html
it's a pretty little graphics demo that won't over-stress anything, but can give you some idea if your're GPU is unstable. Run GPU-Z at the same time to monitor temps and to see if the GPU is running at it's proper speed:
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
I would use memtest, or the Windows 7 memory test, to check that your RAM is alright too.
http://www.memtest.org/
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/715-memory-diagnostics-tool.html

DirkGently said:
Run rthdribl against it for a while:
http://downloadcenter24.com/video-and-dvd/rthdribl.html
it's a pretty little graphics demo that won't over-stress anything, but can give you some idea if your're GPU is unstable. Run GPU-Z at the same time to monitor temps and to see if the GPU is running at it's proper speed:
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
I would use memtest, or the Windows 7 memory test, to check that your RAM is alright too.
http://www.memtest.org/
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/715-memory-diagnostics-tool.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thank you. My ram is fine. I just swapped for 8gb less than a month ago and it is just fine. I will run some tests on my gpu this afternoon. Thanks again.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

DirkGently said:
Run rthdribl against it for a while:
http://downloadcenter24.com/video-and-dvd/rthdribl.html
it's a pretty little graphics demo that won't over-stress anything, but can give you some idea if your're GPU is unstable. Run GPU-Z at the same time to monitor temps and to see if the GPU is running at it's proper speed:
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
I would use memtest, or the Windows 7 memory test, to check that your RAM is alright too.
http://www.memtest.org/
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/715-memory-diagnostics-tool.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So I ran that applet and it ran just fine gpu around 75-80C and gpu load around 15-20% but premiere and online videos are killer. Not smooth at all.
So as soon as I load up premiere, the gpu maxes out the clock speeds which I assume is OK because it's getting used? It never shows the gpu load to go up though.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

If it's not crashy under load i think we can rule out a GPU failure. What's the CPU utilization while you're running Premier and Videos? Take a look in Task manager to see what it's doing.
It could just be something simple like a dodgy plug-in, or a driver that needs to be re-installed. If you haven't already to could try re-installing/updating the usual candidates. Graphics drivers/Flash/Siverlight/Browser/Sound.

DirkGently said:
If it's not crashy under load i think we can rule out a GPU failure. What's the CPU utilization while you're running Premier and Videos? Take a look in Task manager to see what it's doing.
It could just be something simple like a dodgy plug-in, or a driver that needs to be re-installed. If you haven't already to could try re-installing/updating the usual candidates. Graphics drivers/Flash/Siverlight/Browser/Sound.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Graphics driver is the most current Nvidia Driver, Flash is current, It happens on all browsers so I want to rule out Chrome, and what about sound could it be? I just figured that the sound uses the built in sounds card on my motherboard.. I assumed my windows updates took care of that..

Device Manager will tell you if there's any problems. Press Win Key+Pause/Break, Device Manager and look for any exclamation marks in yellow triangles.
I'd still be interested to see what the CPU is doing when the issues crop up.
Also, test your drive with HDTune:
http://www.hdtune.com/
It will help diagnose any drive errors.

DirkGently said:
Device Manager will tell you if there's any problems. Press Win Key+Pause/Break, Device Manager and look for any exclamation marks in yellow triangles.
I'd still be interested to see what the CPU is doing when the issues crop up.
Also, test your drive with HDTune:
http://www.hdtune.com/
It will help diagnose any drive errors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will check but I am starting to rule out hardware, only because my ubuntu boot is very very fast. I have never had chrome or firefox slow down on me. So I am thinking about doing a clean wipe of my ssd and my hdd and see if that fixes it.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

swan3609 said:
I will check but I am starting to rule out hardware, only because my ubuntu boot is very very fast. I have never had chrome or firefox slow down on me. So I am thinking about doing a clean wipe of my ssd and my hdd and see if that fixes it.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everyone works their way around to a clean install eventually!
I used to tell people to start with doing that, as it ends up being the faster option after all the messing about, but then people always want to try every other possible option first. I've learned that it's best to let them come to that conclusion all on their own!
Good luck. Let us know if everything is ok afterwards.

Too much cores?

I'm talking about CPU cores people, not corn or the earth's core,
IS THERE SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH CORE FOR A SMARTPHONE?
this is how experts view this:
Greg Sullivan said:
If you're going to use the number of cores on your phone as the single metric for performance, you're doing it wrong. --
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nick DiCarlo said:
In theory, if you divide among cores, each one has an easy job rather than a hard job. --
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Raj Talluri said:
"We're able to get more performance with two processors than our competition can get with four,"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Greg Sullivan said:
that writing code to take advantage of multiple processor cores makes writing apps much harder. Likewise, there's a lot more complexity in debugging apps when something goes wrong, a challenge that many app developers are reluctant to face.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Greg Sullivan said:
Multicore won't help you in a world where the apps aren't threaded
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Francis Sideco said:
It's just like punching the accelerator on the sports car. The faster you do that, the faster you burn through gas
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Greg Sullivan said:
people listen to music while surfing the Web, and that's something you can do very efficiently with one core, performance rests on how efficiently the operating system can manage tasks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nick DiCarlo said:
Chip guys...will absolutely show you benchmarks where their chip will dominate everybody else's
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So these are the experts,
but what do you think?

I see no difference between single core and dual core services except in gaming.I'm quite content with my single core device compared to a dual core
Sent from my inter galactic super fantastic communication device.

Honestly, I'm a little torn on this one. The spec snob in me says "Moar cores, moar better, moar faster! Gimme nao!!"
However, I own both the HTC One X (international Quad core Tegra 3 variant) and the Samsung Galaxy S III (TMOUS S4 dual core variant)
They are both fast, powerful phones....
(disclaimer: yes, I know the S4 is based on a newer architecture (28nm vs the 40nm Tegra 3)
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I don't know. It still takes about 3 full minutes for a picture to show up in the folder I moved it to. Maybe that's not the phone messing up, but I wonder if it would happen faster with a quad core phone.
BUT, I am inclined to agree with Greg Sullivan as a gut instinct.
Sent from your mom.

guys thats a simple a thing.
the performance isnt based on the number of cores,you can have a phone with dualcore cpu and it can be better(in performance) than a quadcore one,but you can have a quadcore which is better than a dualcore phone, its based on the software and the other hardware,its not only about cores.....

Eventually more cores will make a difference, but it's still too early right now
Once the majority of software is threaded, then more cores will mean faster processing and better battery life, especially in a multi-tasking environment like Android
But for right now, I wish there was as much attention paid to ram speed and r/w speed to internal/external sd storage
That would be a bigger boost to performance right now than cramming a 20 core cpu into a phone

Of course there can be too many cores. Every core more, than needed to complete a given task in an appropriate amount of time is one core to much. The question is, what will the average user (not people like us) do with their phones, and how much processor power does that need. The average users I know use their phones for Facebook and Angry Birds. Not very demanding things. To be honest, I don't do very much more CPU-intensive things, too.
Also, don't forget that software has to be optimised to run on multicore-machines. And those software that can be highly optimised, takes more advantage of GPUs than of CPUs. And highly parallelizable tasks are usually there to calculate things that you don't want to bother with on your way.
It's a matter of how people use their phones, but as a guideline we can take Intel's and AMD's x86-processors, for most tasks dual-core is enough, and more than quad-core is rarely used at all for private purposes.

deathnotice01 said:
I'm talking about CPU cores people, not corn or the earth's core,
IS THERE SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH CORE FOR A SMARTPHONE?
this is how experts view this:
So these are the experts,
but what do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The amount of cores is not the only factor for performance.
However, assuming all other factors are the same, more cores will yield better performance in multi threaded code.
Sent from my HTC Rezound

I'm surprised no one has brought up the PS3 yet. It's processor is the epitome of this discussion.
More cores can make a huge difference, but the process is difficult and sometimes not with it, especially if they're unused.

Zacmanman said:
I'm surprised no one has brought up the PS3 yet. It's processor is the epitome of this discussion.
More cores can make a huge difference, but the process is difficult and sometimes not with it, especially if they're unused.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the Cell Processor isn't like traditional multi core processors.
Each of the helper cores can only do single floats, but they are good for assisting the Gpu.
(I think it has been super fast bus between the cpu and gpu)
A very unique architecture, which is why it took several years to fully take advantage of it.
Sent from my HTC Rezound

The PS3 doesn't have to last off of a limited power supply. They can throw as many cores as they want in something with a wired power supply, when you switch over to something like a cellphone that has an expected battery life all that crap flies out the window. If the cores aren't being properly utilized that's just wasted power (at least to me). I am going to hold onto my Nexus S until it either dies out or stops being developed for. Hopefully multi core processors are better utilized by then.

wouldn't it be possible to break 1 chip into like 10 smaller cores, so it's almost like an army tackling the date transfer rather then 1 big chip tackling the data transfer? I know that that they're integrating GPU's with CPU's now, but what if they were to make 5 small GPU cores and 5 small CPU cores inside of one blazing fast chip. could it work?

MRsf27 said:
wouldn't it be possible to break 1 chip into like 10 smaller cores, so it's almost like an army tackling the date transfer rather then 1 big chip tackling the data transfer? I know that that they're integrating GPU's with CPU's now, but what if they were to make 5 small GPU cores and 5 small CPU cores inside of one blazing fast chip. could it work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, that's sort of what Tegra 3 is like. Look up the specs of the Nexus 7.

Zacmanman said:
Actually, that's sort of what Tegra 3 is like. Look up the specs of the Nexus 7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh... sowwies im a nuubeee :laugh: knowledge is power. you learn something new everyday thank you sir

Just give it more time batteries will get smaller with higher power rating and mobile phone CPUs will get more power efficient.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app

MRsf27 said:
wouldn't it be possible to break 1 chip into like 10 smaller cores, so it's almost like an army tackling the date transfer rather then 1 big chip tackling the data transfer? I know that that they're integrating GPU's with CPU's now, but what if they were to make 5 small GPU cores and 5 small CPU cores inside of one blazing fast chip. could it work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel and AMD chips are also like that, that's the new thing coming. I just find tech funy, the more powerful the smaller...smh..
Sent from my HTC Desire Z using xda premium

strip419 said:
Intel and AMD chips are also like that, that's the new thing coming. I just find tech funy, the more powerful the smaller...smh..
Sent from my HTC Desire Z using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well they have to make them smaller.
If they kept the build process at the same size and made them more powerful, they would be giant, use a ton of power, and generate a ton of heat.
Sent from my HTC Rezound

I don't think more cores will be added to phones for a long while yet anyway.
This is because we had single cores and dual cores for years and they still work perfectly well.
Proof of that is the S2. It's an old phone in comparison to the newest phones on the market, yet it's still more powerful than the majority of phones around. Now, I know that it isn't purely based on the cores, but they are a deciding factor.
The dual cores of it can still more than easily do everything that is required of them, without even struggling.
So based on that, quad cores aren't even essential as of yet, so it's going to be a long time before more are needed.
I'm a product of the system I was born to destroy!

From a developer’s point of view, to get any advantage out of multiple core processors can involve a complete rewrite of the application. Is it worth the pain of doing this? The job has to be able to be split into threads that can be run completely independently of each other. In some cases this is impossible, or hardly worth the effort for any advantage returned.
On a PC, I have written a few number crunching programs that can farm out parcels of work across all four cores, using the _beginthreadex() Windows API. It still has to wait for the longest running thread to finish before it can carry on, meanwhile the other cores that have finished, sit there idle.
While multicore devices can run different applications at once, can you keep up with them all? There is only one human interface to the device.
There is very little software that really knows how to make full use of multiple cores.

S4 = what level of PC or laptop?

Been meaning to ask this but keep forgetting. If the s4 were an actual full fledged computer, what would be the equivalent for a regular computer? I know it's way more powerful than a 486, but I'm just curious on what it might be. I remember the days when my 800mhz Intel, forgot if Pentium 2 or 3, used to take over 24 hours to encode a movie ripped from a DVD.

oscarthegrouch said:
Been meaning to ask this but keep forgetting. If the s4 were an actual full fledged computer, what would be the equivalent for a regular computer? I know it's way more powerful than a 486, but I'm just curious on what it might be. I remember the days when my 800mhz Intel, forgot if Pentium 2 or 3, used to take over 24 hours to encode a movie ripped from a DVD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe the level of a mid-high end PC from 2007?

optimummind said:
Maybe the level of a mid-high end PC from 2007?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Going by Geekbench, a low end Core 2 duo from July 2006.
http://ark.intel.com/products/27249
Both products get a geekbench score of ~3200. The Core 2 Duo would still be faster in single threaded tasks since it only needs 2 cores to get that score, while the galaxy needs 4 cores.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

Chromebook?
I was thinking the other day if it could run Office, a larger monitor, and connect to my scanner and NAS, it could replace my desktop.
But it can't, yet.

What's funny about it is that you'll have 100's of less problems on this phone that a 2006 PC.

thunng8 said:
Going by Geekbench, a low end Core 2 duo from July 2006.
http://ark.intel.com/products/27249
Both products get a geekbench score of ~3200. The Core 2 Duo would still be faster in single threaded tasks since it only needs 2 cores to get that score, while the galaxy needs 4 cores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool, Thx for digging that up. Have you found any GPU comparisons as well?
I wonder how long it'll take until a smartphone can play games like Tomb Raider or Crysis 3.

optimummind said:
Cool, Thx for digging that up. Have you found any GPU comparisons as well?
I wonder how long it'll take until a smartphone can play games like Tomb Raider or Crysis 3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In 4 years, +/- 1.
It's the Mangekyō Sharingan! Quick, only look at his toes!

It's hard to Guage because the architectures are entirely different.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app

maxnix said:
Chromebook?
I was thinking the other day if it could run Office, a larger monitor, and connect to my scanner and NAS, it could replace my desktop.
But it can't, yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone attempt hooking up a USB device to see if it can be a USB host? Used for copying/moving files to/from flash drive?

oscarthegrouch said:
Anyone attempt hooking up a USB device to see if it can be a USB host? Used for copying/moving files to/from flash drive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have an OTG cable and a 32 GB tumb drive.
I attached cable with the drive to my phone and it recognized it right away.
So I would say USB host works for flash drives at least.
Haven't try keyboard or mouse. Don't have them..

Cool beans agat. It didn't need an additional 5vdc from a hub to power the device? Thumb drives probably don't need much to get them running but anything more would I'd guess. Yeah man, I'm ripping DVDs on my phone with an external DVD drive and a hub. Lol.

probablly a high end pc from 2005-2006 times, and the processor still competes with some mid-high end processors now

NSS1995 said:
probablly a high end pc from 2005-2006 times, and the processor still competes with some mid-high end processors now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not quite; these are different types of processors; modern ARM is not comparable to modern x86 RISC processors at all. ARM is best for low power situations, x86 is much better for performance overall.
Keep in mind you are comparing one ARM machine with NAND flash memory 'hard drive' against an x86 with a spinning platter disc; and two totally different instruction sets.
I would like to see what a GS4 running pure linux vs an old Athlon or Core 2 Quad running same Linux at 1.9Ghz with same performing 'hard drive'/memory would do, but ARM is not ready to replace x86. CPU speed isnt everything.
If i had to make a comparison, i would say its closer to my ancient Dell Inspiron 5150 underclocked. Low power mode at 1.7Ghz (hyperthreaded, max 3.06 Ghz), 32bit, 2GB RAM (albeit at 333Mhz), 1600x1200 display, and with a PATA SSD (transcend PSD320), in terms of raw power, but i havent any way to directly test executable vs executable yet. Laptop still runs btw, and i still use it.

agat63 said:
I have an OTG cable and a 32 GB tumb drive.
I attached cable with the drive to my phone and it recognized it right away.
So I would say USB host works for flash drives at least.
Haven't try keyboard or mouse. Don't have them..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which cable did you get? I might have to give it a try.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using xda premium

crawrj said:
Which cable did you get? I might have to give it a try.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got it about 1.5 years ago for my E4GT and still using it.
I remember I paid about 4.99 (free shipping) but don't remember which one.
It looks exactly like this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Straight-Mi...Phone_PDA_Cables_Adapters&hash=item3a8146ec28
But I can't guarantee it's the same one tho.

agat63 said:
I've got it about 1.5 years ago for my E4GT and still using it.
I remember I paid about 4.99 (free shipping) but don't remember which one.
It looks exactly like this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Straight-Mi...Phone_PDA_Cables_Adapters&hash=item3a8146ec28
But I can't guarantee it's the same one tho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks man.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using xda premium

how to buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 with 64 bits CPU?

Hi everyone!
I want to buy the tablet Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 for its amazing screen, but the 64bits world is already here.
I checked that the only versions with a 64 bits cpu are just SM-T805S, SM-T805K, and SM-T805L with the Exynos 5433 in Korea.
Does anyone know where to buy it without going in person to Korea?
Or does anyone know if there is another version(s) with 64bits cpu and where to buy it?
Thanks!

Why do you want a 64 bit CPU?

codified said:
Why do you want a 64 bit CPU?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll bet he doesn't even know. Saying 64 "bits" tells me he isn't very knowledgeable with technology. He just heard it from somewhere.

bloodrain954 said:
I'll bet he doesn't even know. Saying 64 "bits" tells me he isn't very knowledgeable with technology. He just heard it from somewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or you can just be nice and explain to him why the 64 bit version won't garner him any real world benefits right now...:highfive:

wow!! how nice people are around here!!!
even if I dont have very high knowledge in technologies, you just have to write on google "64 bits android" to really know that 64 bits in android is not making any high difference now. So it doesnt really matter and whoever can know that. But at the same time, you can also see that there are some improvements and other "stuff" (typical word that some of my kind use) that will be useful soon while the rest of the techolopy (or technoloki... or how was the word? oh yes! = t-e-c-h-n-o-l-o-g-y ) is progressing.
I am not very advanced and thats why I am writing here, sorry that I didnt passed the test to write here.
Anyway, my only stupid reason why I want a 64 bits CPU is because of the money. Coz I dont have a lot. And I am the kind of person that tries to buy something that will last many years coz I cant afford to change deviced regularly. I bought my last laptop 10 years ago, it worked 7 years... and since then, there is no laptop. But my personal life is not the matter, and I am not asking about laptops or why I want a tablet now.
But I need a tablet that will last untill burns, and the "64bits world" is starting developing and in two years or so... I dont want to have a tablet that I cant use with something because 32 bits doesnt supported... but this is just an opinion anyway...

All 'new' tablets will last for a long time. 64 bit won't make a difference. If you feel it does, get the nexus 9. But even Google knows 32bit devices won't be going anywhere for a LONG time. Hence the reason the Nexus 6 is "only" using a 32bit processor. I'll be busy currently enjoying my brand new 32bit tablet

Just order online nuff said!

Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel stupid. I ask the question because a lot of people go blindly seeking the latest marketing term without realising what it means
64-bit processors are the new craze since Apple released one and had all the publicity about it
But it doesn't add much at all, and it won't future-proof your phone like you might think it would
This is a good article to read:
http://www.androidauthority.com/note-4-64-bit-32-bit-android-l-536280/
Anyway, the Exynos 5433 processor that you are talking about is technically 64 bit architecture but will only run in 32 bit mode, so you aren't really getting any of the advantages of 64 bit. You will have to wait for the Exynos 7420 for true 64-bit performance.

codified said:
Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel stupid. I ask the question because a lot of people go blindly seeking the latest marketing term without realising what it means
64-bit processors are the new craze since Apple released one and had all the publicity about it
But it doesn't add much at all, and it won't future-proof your phone like you might think it would
This is a good article to read:
http://www.androidauthority.com/note-4-64-bit-32-bit-android-l-536280/
Anyway, the Exynos 5433 processor that you are talking about is technically 64 bit architecture but will only run in 32 bit mode, so you aren't really getting any of the advantages of 64 bit. You will have to wait for the Exynos 7420 for true 64-bit performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right, 64-Bit processors are only really beneficial if you have the added memory to make good use of them, Apple's was only a gimmick when you consider they still only come with 1gb of RAM whereas most other devices not coming from Apple have 2gb or more.

lorinkundert said:
You are right, 64-Bit processors are only really beneficial if you have the added memory to make good use of them, Apple's was only a gimmick when you consider they still only come with 1gb of RAM whereas most other devices not coming from Apple have 2gb or more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats not true. A 64-Bit processor have more registers and handle processing generally faster than the 32-Bit, even if you don't run any 64-Bit code on it.

caravana said:
Thats not true. A 64-Bit processor have more registers and handle processing generally faster than the 32-Bit, even if you don't run any 64-Bit code on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not without more RAM it doesn't, I design mobile devices so I have a ton of experience.

lorinkundert said:
Not without more RAM it doesn't, I design mobile devices so I have a ton of experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RAM has nothing to do with the processors architecture, and with all due respect, your experience is not an argument. About the ARM 64-Bit architecture I can quote the AnandTech guys here:
Architecturally, the Cortex A57 is much like a tweaked Cortex A15 with 64-bit support. The CPU is still a 3-wide/3-issue machine with a 15+ stage pipeline. ARM has increased the width of NEON execution units in the Cortex A57 (128-bits wide now?) as well as enabled support for IEEE-754 DP FP. There have been some other minor pipeline enhancements as well. The end result is up to a 20 - 30% increase in performance over the Cortex A15 while running 32-bit code. Running 64-bit code you'll see an additional performance advantage as the 64-bit register file is far simplified compared to the 32-bit RF.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And here AnandTech does detailed arm 32bit vs 64bit performance comparison:
The conclusion? There are definitely reasons outside of needing more memory to go 64-bit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So yes, the ARM 64-bit architecture is generally faster than the 32-bit counterpart, because of enhancements that does not depend on the amount of RAM available.

lorinkundert said:
Not without more RAM it doesn't, I design mobile devices so I have a ton of experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a feeling you don't.

to take full advantage of a 64-bit processor you'd need an operating system that is also 64-bit as well, more than 4GB of ram (since 32-bit has a limitation of 4GB ram), and apps that are 64-bit.
For the pace of technology I'd say applications in the server-world (SQL and stuff) have fully taken advantage of 64-bit architecture for 10ish years, desktops maybe in the past 6 or 7 years.
It really depends on what type of programs you're using because certain things use the CPU, other's use the GPU. This being for games and such.
Apps like MX Player would take advantage of the CPU. ART in Android Lollipop will do us well. Bottom line- way too many factors but I don't think anything coming out on Android will make good use of a 64-bit architecture for a few more years. I mean, anything that would need 64-bits is really a battle with "is this a battery-friendly app or some intense app that should really be on a desktop?" or something. 64-bit just isn't needed right now. Personally, I like when developers focus on making programs that work best in a low power environment like a mobile device architecture.
You're buying an octacore tablet which is the most high-end device right now. I'd say Android and the hardware won't get much more fancier fancier for the next year or 2 and, TBH, this tablet won't start feeling sluggish for maybe 4 or 5 years as far as technology typically progresses.

Here's a video by Linus Tech tips detailing 64 bit vs 32 bit in a more layman term:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IknbgnJLSRY

Thanks for your messages.
After reading all and watching videos... I see that 64bit is not a big difference now, but it won't be for a very long time either... so it will be a little bit like the current situation in deskpots: even if 64bits is generally seen in everything, everything (almost) is still compatible with 32 bits and companies still give support to 32 bits...
and, on top of everything, if the "highest" option with this tablet is the exynos 5433 64 bits but only runs in 32bits mode... it makes no sense.
so, according to this, my question would be: how this tablet is going to handle Android Lollipop with the exynos 5420? I mean, how does the exynos 5420 (32 bits) handle android lollipop (64bits)?

There is a 64 bit option on my kernel configuration file for Note Edge 5433 and if enabled + unlocked 64 bit bootloader + firmware = winner. The 5433 Tab S is the same and has been deliberately crippled by Samsung to keep it on par with the crappy Snapdragon 805 which won't be ready for 64 bit until mid-next year. Even then, SD performance and potential doesn't even come close to the Exynos.